Sizing Up the Worship Practices in Your Church

By Robin G. Jordan

It is sometimes argued that the retention of certain Medieval Catholic practices are harmless because a particular congregation no longer associates with them the unscriptural Medieval Catholic doctrines with which they have had a long association. This argument fails to consider that while one congregation may not make this association, other congregations and their clergy in the same Anglican body or in another denomination do make the association. New clergy may exploit the congregation’s retention of the practices to introduce the doctrines with which they have been long associated. Since the nineteenth century clergy who hold these doctrines have utilized these practices to introduce the doctrines to their congregations. Their retention will also reinforce the association in the minds of the new congregants who have been taught to associate them with these doctrines. The retention of these practices is far from harmless.

No practice is completely neutral. It communicates an idea or a cluster of ideas. While the practice itself may not be prohibited by Scripture, the message that it conveys may not be consonant with Scripture. It may conflict or be incompatible with what Scripture teaches.



Take for example eucharistic vestments, in particular the chasuble and the stole. These vestments have a long association with the Medieval Catholic beliefs in the essential role of priests as intermediaries between the people and God, the conversion of the eucharistic elements into Christ’s body and blood, and the eucharist as a reiteration or representation of Christ’s sacrifice. None of these beliefs find support in Scripture. The New Testament teaches that we have direct access to God through Jesus. He is the only mediator that we need. Jesus in the Institution Narratives refers to the wine as fruit of the vine, which he had moments before referred to as his blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25). With his death on the cross at Calvary Christ made full and complete atonement for our sins. These Medieval Catholic beliefs are in conflict with the plain meaning of Scripture and the classical Anglican formularies, which are themselves grounded in Scripture.

Even if the clergy of a congregation does not espouse these Medieval Catholic beliefs, their use of eucharistic vestments is a visible reminder of the doctrines. The wearing of eucharistic vestments also communicate the idea that the person wearing them is different from the other people in the Christian assembly. He is more important. He is special. Whatever gifts God has given him sets him apart from the rest of the gathered church. In New Testament we again find no support for such ideas. In New Testament we find nothing that backs up the idea that modern-day Anglican ‘priest’ is a successor to the priest of the Tabernacle and the Temple of the Old Covenant. The Aaronic priesthood was hereditary. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross eliminated the need for the Aaronic priesthood. The priesthood of Melchizedek is Christ’s alone. The only priesthood to which a modern-day Anglican ‘priest’ belongs is the common priesthood of all believers. The New Testament does not countenance the idea that one person’s spiritual gifts are more important than another’s: all manifestations of the Holy Spirit are given for the upbuilding of the Body of Christ. The term ‘priest’ in The Book of Common Prayer is not a reference to a sacerdote, or sacrificing priest, but a contraction of the Greek word presbyter, or elder. Clearly the message that the wearing of eucharistic vestments conveys is at odds with the plain meaning of Scripture and the classical Anglican formularies.

The English Reformers might have completely done away with any particular dress for clergy during church services. Even John Jewel was at one point ready to dispense with vestments all together. For a time a number of clergy conducted church services in street clothes. Eventually the wearing of a surplice would be prescribed for clergy during divine service; the wearing of a cope would be permitted in cathedrals and college chapels on the major festivals of the church year. The latter practice quickly fell into desuetude.

By the seventeenth century the surplice was the only vestment worn in divine service. A black preaching gown might be worn during the sermon but the sermon was not considered a part of the service. The surplice was, however, to be worn during the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion.

The surplice was tolerated because it was not associated with the Medieval Catholic beliefs with which the stole and the chasuble were associated. It was a choir vestment. Both clergy and laity had worn it. The more extreme of the Puritans, however, objected to its use, regarded the wearing of any kind of vestment as Popery and without warrant of Scripture.

The practice of wearing eucharistic vestments was not revived in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States until the nineteenth century. It was accompanied by the reintroduction of Medieval Catholic doctrines in these two churches.



It is also argued that the retention of certain Medieval Catholic practices is what distinguishes the Anglican churches from the churches of other denominations. This argument is fallacious. It is typically used in support of the retention of Medieval Catholic practices that the English Reformers rejected for good reason, and which were not revived in Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States until the ritualistic movement of the nineteenth century. This movement sought to undo the reforms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and to restore the doctrines and practices of the pre-Reformation Medieval Catholic Church. It also sought to introduce the innovations in doctrine and worship of the post-Tridentian Roman Catholic Church, arguing that the English Church would have adopted these innovations if the Reformation had not occurred. It conveniently ignored the fact that a number of the innovations were the result of the Counter-Reformation—the Roman Catholic Church’s reaction to the Reformation. If the Reformation had not occurred, these innovations would in all likelihood have never seen the light of day.

While the retention of these Medieval Catholic practices may characterize churches that maintain continuity with the nineteenth century ritualistic movement, they are not characteristic of all Anglican churches. The Anglican churches in North America in which such practices are found, have been influenced by the Anglo-Catholic movement or the Ancient-Future movement. The Anglo-Catholic movement is the modern-day successor to the nineteenth ritualistic movement while the Ancient-Future movement has been influenced by the writings of the late Robert Webber, a former evangelical turned Episcopalian, who was a strong proponent of ritualism in the second half of the twentieth century. Webber would introduce ritualism to charismatics and evangelicals outside the Episcopal Church while reinforcing ritualistic tendencies in the Episcopal Church, particularly among charismatics and ‘evangelicals’ in that body.

Those who argue that the retention of certain Medieval Catholic practices is a major distinguishing characteristic of Anglican churches intentionally or unintentionally embrace the liberal-Catholic view that Anglicanism is primarily a style of worship. This view of Anglicanism, however, is not supported by GAFCON and The Jerusalem Declaration, which take a confessional view of Anglicanism. Being Faithful: The Shape of Historic Anglicanism Today describes Anglicanism as open to a range of worship styles, which reflect the teaching of Scripture and “an encounter with the culture of a given time and place” (p. 134).



It is further argued that Anglican worship without such Medieval Catholic practices would be colorless, drab, and unattractive. They introduce the elements of movement and pageantry into the liturgy. They engage all the senses in worship—sight, sound, smell, and touch. But the fact is that the retention of these practices is not necessary to make worship multi-sensory. Color and movement and even spectacle can be added in other ways.

The important thing is that none of these elements should be allowed to draw attention away from the reading and exposition of the Scriptures. Their reading and exposition should be a prominent feature of our worship gatherings. Jesus taught us to embrace the words of the Scriptures as the gifts of a loving Father, which he gave to nourish the faith of his people (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, p. 125)

The Way, the Truth, and the Life, prepared by the Theological Resource Team of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), stresses that Christ is the only head of the church. He exercises this authority in the churches by his word through the Spirit. He leads his people today by his word addressed to them as his followers. His Spirit attends his word, transforming lives by that word. He rules by his word through his Spirit. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, pp. 119-120)

The Way, the Truth, and the Life goes on to emphasize:

This is seen most clearly in the Scriptures. The Old Testament is the written form of the word of God carried on the breath of God. The apostolic writings share this same character, by virtue of Christ’s promise and commission. The Bible lies at the centre of the church’s life precisely because it is the Spirit-inspired written form of the word of God, by which Christ’s authority is exercised until he returns.(Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, p. 120)

The sacrament of the Holy Communion is itself an enactment of the word (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, p. 130). It therefore should be kept free of unscriptural ceremonies and ornaments so that the word is not distorted or obscured.

We also should not lose sight of the fact that our worship together on Sundays and other times is only a small part of what should be a life of worship, a life in which Christ is recognizably Lord, directing our life and thoughts, and which is lived in obedience to God’s word.



What practices then are permissible in our corporate worship? Cranmer’s essay ‘Of Ceremonies’ in The Book of Common Prayer offers some guidelines.

--They should be agreeable to Scripture.

--They should edify.

--They should not foster error or superstition.

--They should promote orderliness.

--They should not be unnecessarily burdensome to the conscience without cause.

--They should be alterable.

--They should be understandable to everyone—both their meaning and their use. (‘Of Ceremonies, The Book of Common Prayer, pp. 7-8)

The Book of Common Prayer along with the other foundational documents of Anglicanism—the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Homilies—takes the Bible as the norm by which to judge what may be used or not used in worship. This is why being agreeable to Scripture is listed first. If a practice directly or indirectly not consonant with Scripture, it should be avoided even though it may meet the other guidelines. Determining whether or not it fails to meet this critical guideline calls for prayerful discernment. We can become so devoted to a practice that our attachment to the practice colors our judgment. We must not forget that the human heart is extremely deceitful and prone to evil even in the regenerate. Because of the deep seatedness of our rebellion against God we are apt to manipulate Scripture in our own interests, evading its teaching while giving others the impression that we take it with great seriousness. (Being Faithful: The Shape of Anglicanism Today, pp. 125-126)